Page 123 - The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology

9781412934633-Chap-07 1/10/09 8:43 AM Page 94

94 THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY

● It is highly contextualized. institutional loyalties). Since competition
● It produces ‘marketable knowledge.’ will be more open, the university will need to
● There is a porosity of disciplinary and institu- identify ‘niches’ of specialization where it
tional boundaries. can become more competitive (Gibbons et al.,
● Scientific careers are interchangeable: a person 1994: 157).
may interchangeably be an administrator, head a According to Nowotny et al. (2005), Mode
laboratory, be a scientific entrepreneur, etc.
● It introduces trans-disciplinarity in other than 2 was espoused most warmly by politicians
‘hot’ topics. and civil servants struggling to create better
● It signals a growing importance of hybrid fora in mechanisms to link science with innovation.
the configuration of knowledge. This linkage does not necessarily corre-
● The fora are constituted by experts and spond to increased social accountability.
non-experts as social actors (Gibbons et al., Moreover, the research examples given in
1994: 156). Gibbons et al. refer to applications benefit-
ing a reduced number of stakeholders, with-
out any reference to general societal needs.
The Boeing 700 series and the Phillips cas-
Policy of technological innovation
sette are examples given by Gibbons et al.
The explanation that the proponents give for (1994: 60) of Mode 2 projects primarily
the emergence of this new model of doing favoring Boeing and Phillips, not society at
science is that the economic decline of the large.
1980s and increased competition on a world
scale forced policymakers to narrow their
perspective on the role of science in
the achievement of national objectives, A NEW ‘SOCIAL CONTRACT’
and to ‘straddle’ the scientific activity of
industrial innovation and competitiveness. Toward the end of the 1990s, the role that
Science policy moved toward technology as science plays concerning society and devel-
a more effective way of supporting national opment came under serious scrutiny. In the
industry. past, science policy was based mainly on acts
In part this change is a response to the of faith. It was propelled by faith that
reduced competitiveness of the United States research activity would naturally lead to
vis-à-vis Japan. To some extent, decision- technological innovation, which in turn
makers reached the conclusion that the tech- would guarantee economic growth, and
nological base of the world economy had thus social cohesion and peace. It was
come to an end. believed with a certain naïveté that ‘what
is good for science is good for humanity,’
leaving science policy decisions in the hands
of scientists.
Impact of this change on the
Currently, such acts of faith are severely
university
challenged in light of the fact that scientific
The vision of the university in Mode 2 and technological advances that have
changes from having a monopoly of knowl- contributed to economic development have
edge production, ‘a social technology for the also brought about irreversible ecological
production of universal knowledge’ (Fuller, deterioration, technological disasters, and the
2003: 217), to being a ‘partner’ in the development of low-cost weaponry of mass
national and international contexts. This destruction which is difficult to dismantle.
role change will imply a redefinition of All the above are unfortunately associated
excellence among academics (professional with the exacerbation of social inequality,
aspirations, contributions to the discipline, exclusion, and the increase in asymmetries